Take a stand, Fred
USA Today ran a story this week on the “top 25 headlines that shaped history.” The 23rd-ranked story was the fight for the life of Terri Schiavo.
Flabbergastingly, when GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson was asked about the case today, he said he had no opinion and couldn’t remember the details:
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson gave no opinion Thursday when asked about efforts by President Bush and Congress to keep Terri Schiavo alive, saying he does not remember details of the right-to-die case that stirred national debate.
Thompson was asked in an interview for Bay News 9’s “Political Connections” program whether he thought Congress’ intervention to save the life of the brain-dead woman two years ago was appropriate.
“I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best,” Thompson said. “That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.”
Congress passed a bill after Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed in March 2005 to allow a federal court to review the case, and Bush returned from his Texas ranch to sign the bill into law. But a federal judge refused to order the tube reinserted, a decision upheld by a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court.
Thompson, a former Tennessee senator who left office in 2003, did say, “Local matters generally speaking should be left to the locals. I think Congress has got an awful lot to keep up with.”
This was a case on fundamental matters of ethics, end of life issues, and the definition of personhood and humanity...and Fred punts the question?
Attention, Thompson campaign: Reacquaint yourself with Terri’s Fight here.
***
Previous Terriblogging.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Video: Fred Thompson Blasts MoveOn.Org
- Sorry, Michelle « Buttle’s World
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Thompson, Schiavo…
- Life of the Party
- Fred, How Can You Not Remember Terri? « www.TheReaganWing.com
- Terry, yes, everybody else, no! « Cowardly political musings…
- “Take a stand, Fred” « Vox Nova
- Matthe3w
- 0b75f2a1cb61454e41dd
- bench warrant laws
- Jessie
- Michelle Malkin » Memo to ABC, NYTimes: Terri Schiavo was not “brain dead”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: End of life issues
Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip club
Legal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine ExplodesStop The ACLU
» Hasan Tried To Contact al Qaeda. Sounds Like A Jihadi To MeJustOneMinute
» Stay Classy, Ezra!Gay Patriot
» First Shots of a Civil War Among Democrats?
Ok, that one right there is a winner…
So it’s back to the “coloureds only school” for the Little Rock Nine then according to your view, Melvin?
Conversely, Fred could make announcements about upcoming dates he will not make an announcement on it.
There are so many surrounding circumstances to this truly, sad story. SO many. I would have to say that if Thompson had answered, and fumbled…it would have been much worse than saying nothing at all. I’ll give him that he may have made the smarter decision.
You know, this was a pretty complex issue (possible spousal abuse, patient’s right to live, medical science, state laws, spouses rights, Federal intervention) etc.
But the blogger above was correct…it is a
. It does make you question how he will handle these types of issues if he becomes president.
This story made me sick on so many different levels. But honestly speaking, something really didn’t smell right with Michael. Ending Terri’s life had less to do with ending her suffering and doing what she would have wanted than to get a huge monkey off his back. HE did not do the right thing, which makes me question his motives all the more.
Be that as it may, if they were going to STARVE a person to death (we give animals a more humane and dignified exit – as well as death row inmates) with the intention of ending their life, they should have come up something much more humane. NO, I don’t believe it should have been done in the first place, AND NO, I don’t believe in Euthanasia…however, in this specific case, considering the outcome was imminent death, I certainly don’t think they should have let her STARVE. She was given absolutely No grace.
I believe Michael should have been in jail YEARS ago.
I’m just a commenter like you, Babe. I’d only blog if the bucks were right!
Dangnabbit, forgot to close the bold tag.
And to think, Babe, people who starve their cats, dogs, horses and other pets to death usually are looked down upon and have to answer to the law.
Michael Vicks’ dogs got more justice than did Terri Schiavo.
In some respects I agree that this is not a political issue – it is one mmuch larger than that.
One critical fact that apparently keeps getting turned around is that Terri could swallow. One of the reasons deputies were deployed in the hospice was to insure that no one provided her anything by mouth.
Death by dedhydration is one of the most horrific ways for a living being to die. Had Terri been a cocker spaniel instead of a woman, I am positive there is no way this would have happened. Or if Terri had been housed at Guantanomo Bay in her condition.
I have read the Constitution more times than I care to remember, and no where in my readings did I ever come across a reference to a right to die. Not in the Constitution, nor the declaration of Independence nor any other of our keystone documents. The rights to “life”, however, are frequently mentioned. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not death, restricted freedoms and social utopia.
You can rationalize this issue all day, but the basic truth here is that Terri Schiavo was tortured to death. And a judge signed her death warrant when she was not so much guilty of a misdemeanor. What she was guilty of, was that she was a burden. An inconvenient weakling that could not provide her own care or speak for herself. She was disposable.
Most people will avoid accidental or sudden death and grow old, eventually getting to the stage where they can no longer go it alone. The precedence created by the Schiavo case should send a shudder up the spine of everyone alive today. It does not take a fantastic leap of logic to forsee a day where this can be applied to the elderly, and the mentally deficient, and anyone else who relies on the goodness and empathy of others to continue living. There is precedent for this type of society in modern history – Hitler was quite a trailblazer in this type of thinking.
Isn’t it sad the criteria for putting someone to death would be how much they do or do not “chew”?
She was deprived of her religious rights, among other rights. The judge refused to let her take communion. Killing her clearly violated her Consituional rights, unless the judge had convicted her of a capital crime.
Can you imagine being a Catholic, as she was, and being put to death just because her husband wanted her out of the way? She was forced to violate even the strongest teachings of her own faith. What a horrible and incredible shame.
People don’t think that far out, as evidenced by some of the responses to my comments. They would rather think about how to continue their lifestyles of convenience and hedonism, and if that happens to impinge on the rights of the weak and vulnerable, that’s okay because they’re not weak and vulnerable.
As far as Hitler goes, he unfortunately didn’t invent this whole rigamarole, but he does get credit for putting it on the fast track. Dictatorships allow that kind of efficiency. The eugenic policies of the early 20th Century in the U.S. and Europe was where this school of thought began. German doctors expanded on it, and by the time old Adolph rolled around it was a plug-and-play genocide for hundreds of thousands of Germans and millions of others.
#108 purplepeep,
I agree. Though I’m not a Catholic myself, I can imagine the horror involved. It’s a bit of evidence that this was more than just a “right-to-die” case for some people.
That’s it, I’m done with this. Apparently government involvement in every aspect of our lives, it’s usurption of States Rights, is fine so long as it agrees with your view.
But by golly, don’t let them socialize healthcare.
You people are missing the point here. Free choice, and States Rights, mean that there will be decisions you don’t like. It is a direct result of choice – some choices will be made that are wrong or unpopular.
The factor you need to look at it this: Where is the line? Would you allow the Federal government to decide your care in this case? If so, why not in other cases?
If The System doesn’t like your decision to not have chemo-therepy, it would be withing it’s right to FORCE you to take it, regardless of your wishes, if you allow that it should be allowed to step in in cases like Terri Schiavo.
“But swj,” you say. “We’d would know our wishes regarding chemo-therapy, but wouldn’t know the wishes of someone in Terri’s situation…”
Well, in fact, we do. Or, I should say, the law says that we do. The law says that a spouse “knows the wishes” of the other. This knowledge is greater in the eyes of the court that the knowledge of the parents – as it should be in my opinion, my spouse would know me better and more recently than my parents would.
If you are unable to make medical decisions for yourself, your medical proxy (be it spouse of someone designated via a legal document) has the power, authority, and DUTY to make them for you. Yes, medical decisions are made all the time without such consent, but that is in the complete absense of the Proxy (the ER can’t find the wife, so they perform an emergency procedure assuming she’d want it done).
If you allow the Federal Government to step in and say “Nope, don’t care, you do as we say” in cases like Terri Schiavo, you give it the defacto authority to step in with regards to ALL cases. You abdicate your right to decide.
Don’t like the idea of your husband making that call? Draft up papers making someone else your proxy.
You disagree with what he did. Fine. That’s your right.
But don’t sit there and tell me I am in favor of starving people to death, or that I’m wrong.
I am not the one who made the decision to end life support, nor am I a resident who elected the people who changed the law.
If you live in FL, work to get the law changed. Don’t allow the Federal Government to come in and make decisions and believe for an instant they won’t see that offered inch, and take a mile. “Restraint” isn’t something I see alot of in government.
I hate growing old, but death is one of the few certainties in life. A “right to die” is an odd term since it isn’t something the state grants, but, rather, a fundamental condition of life.
One result of the Shiavo case has been the increase in the legal preparations that many Americans make should they become incapcitated. Living wills and powers-of-attorney are honored by hospitals and courts, and foster candid conversations among loved ones ahead of time.
If Terri had a living will and a designated health care proxy, would there still be an objection if she had clearly documented her wish not to receive assistance beyond a given point?
It’s too bad the the sincerity of this proxy was/is so questionable.
To me, and I could be wrong, the fact that Mr. Schiavo seemed to have motives beyond doing what was best for his wife was at the crux of the issue. Had he not started another family while she was incapacitated in what have been a different story.
I have mixed feelings about all this. Swj, I understand you not wanting the government to intrude where it shouldn’t and I think you’re right in questioning where the line is.
However, I would think that most would want the governments to protect them when they are the most vulnerable and at the mercy of someone who appears to be more concerened with his own interests than that of his spouse.
Had Mr. Schiavo been at his wife’s side day in and day out for the past 10 years, then things may have been different. Instead, he started another family, at which his rights to act as Terry’s proxy should be waived ( didn’t he have children with the other woman?) and granted to the parents.
The bill the Congress passed seemed unsatisfactory to me. Yes, it did temporarily keep her alive (a good thing, to me), but it never addressed the underlying issue of making sure that your proxy is someone who has your best interests in mind. (I have to imagine thee is some sort of precedent for this, after all, a man who puts his wife in a coma through violence surely can’t be the one who decides whether or not to keep her on life support).
swj719AWG, socialized healthcare is exactly why this case is so important.
Inevitably, someone will say (like dedalus and a few others above) to get a living will and make your wishes known.
I respond that I have made my wishes known, and I wish to be kept alive if at all possible.
Can you guess the answer that comes back? Something along the lines of “that’s selfish, WHO’S GOING TO PAY?”
In socialized healthcare, everybody pays. Inevitably, that leads to killing off the sick and disabled either passively or actively.
All of the killing quite legal, I might add. After all, if a court says it’s okay, then it’s perfectly fine, right?
Your attempt to equate chemotherapy and other extraordinary medical treatment to plain food and water is very poor sleight-of-hand. Everyone alive needs food and water. A tube for nourishment does not constitute super high tech life support. Such things have been in use in one form or other for centuries.
But I suppose if a court in Lower Bugtussle says it’s treatment, then the Feds shouldn’t say any different. After all, it’s legal and what’s legal is automatically right.
You must have a very extreme notion of states rights, swj.
Take a shot at answering one of the “ponderables” I posited earlier:
Do you believe the Little Rock Nine should be shipped off to a “for ooloureds school” since it was “against state rights” for President Eisenhower to send troops to protect their lives?
I don’t know how anyone who doe not object to having a person, who has not commited a capital offense, put to death can not be considered agreeable to that very action. Unless you mean you don’t care if the person is put to death or not, that it machts nicht either way, life or death, 2 o’ one and half dozen o’ the other, etc.
As to being wrong, I don’t credit even the Pope with infallibility. But then again I’m not Catholic.
How long had she been in a comma before he started that new family? I’m not sure I could hold it against my wife if say after 6 years of me in a coma, she went and found somebody new. I was, after all, gone for a while…
I support your right to be kept alive. If you use private funds you can go to whatever lengths are physically possible.
While I support your right to self-determine medical treatment, my question was whether you support other people determining ahead of time their own personal limits with regard to medical treatment.
Isn’t it a bit insane to think unless a person has crosses all the i’s, dotted the t’s, had it gone over by an army of lawyers, had every high muckety-muck sign it, published and circulated a thousand copies that the person wants to be killed? (and of course, even that won’t stop the desperate types who want someone dead. They’ll find Kevorkian-fan lawyers and judges.)
What kind of nutso default thinking is that? Sorta like punching someone in the face and when they ask “Why did you do that?’, you reply “Well, you didn’t say you didn’t want to be punched in the face.”
Exactly. So keep the Government away. Period. I shouldn’t be made to pay, nor should you.
So has, in some forms, chemo therapy. Life support is life support. If you aren’t able to injest it yourself, without aid, it’s life support.
Again, if you don’t like the law, work to get it changed.
That’s great. How does that apply to the Schivo case?
There was no document giving the right to treatment to anyone else. Thus it fell to the husband.
The law isn’t perfect. It probably was wrong in this case, but to ignore it here means you get to ignore it at will anywhere, and that is where I have a problem.
No, because in Little Rock, the State was violating Federal law in a situation where the Constitution was on the side of the Feds. Thus the Federal law had supremecy, and the State was wrong. The Constitution (via Supreme Court ruling) was clear on this matter. A state was attempting to violate the constitution and it’s amendments, and thus action had to be taken.
Quite simply, I am in favor of individual rights, self-determination, and the rule of law.
Yes, the law was probably wrong here. But that doesn’t mean we throw it all out the window and let Congress decide our every move.
Which is exactly the slippery slope we’d have started down in this case.
Congress had no place in this. If the feds were going to get involved, it would have been via the judiciary branch, not the legislative.
Would I have done the same as Terri’s husband? I don’t know. I haven’t been in that situation, or anything even close to it, so I can’t tell you what my reaction would be. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have acted the way he did, but I can’t tell you for certain.
Was a time I’d have told you I would never smoke. The pack-a-day habit I have right now would suggest I would have been wrong.
I do know, however, that if I were in the same condition as Terri, I would not want the government stepping in and taking away the decision making authority legally granted to someone else.
but would you still want her as your proxy? And suppose she was to benefit from your death, seems like a conflict of interest to me, and I woudn’t want my proxy to have any.
Actually, a video-taped statement detailing what your wishes are would likely work. Hard to argue that what you’re saying isn’t your wishes…
But in any event, Medical Proxy is very, very easy to get. Couple of pages that are mostly boilerplate text, with the names filled in. Sign it, noterize it, and save a couple of copies away (so the thing isn’t lost when you need it).
Then make your proxy someone else. A legal form giving proxy beats the spousal proxy.
I don’t disagree with. But I thought we were talking about if there is no legal proxy and we default to spousal proxy.
Talk about changing the subject! This is about Fred Thompson’s refusal to take a stand, nothing else.
We solved that problem once we realized that there will soon be various announcements about it later.
My point more, swj, is that it’s Bizarro world time when a person has to let others know that s/he does not want to be left to die, much less get a helping push over the edge.
When you stop and think about it, it’s a real mind boggler.
I was interested in what Fred could offer until hearing about this. One way or another, the leader of the free world HAS to have an opinion on such a topic. Either he doesn’t care, not an option, or he doesn’t remember, in which case he is too disconnected to be a leader. Neither way is good, and he’ll have to learn to do better quickly.
I’m still waiting to pull out a Right Said Fred reference myself…oops I did it, and how underwhelming it was.
Terry Schaivo had the grave misfortune of falling into the grey area between life and death before she had the opportunity to put her wishes in writing. Had she never had the feeding tube inserted – as many opt for in such situations – she would have died years ago and that would have been the tragic end of a tragic story, and no one outside her circle of family and friends would have ever known.
The fact is that it is impossible to recover from such severe brain damage, and no amount of laying in a bed with a tube down her throat could ever have changed that. It’s unfortunate for her that under such circumstances, the only 2 options are to remain in that state indefinitely, dying by inches for decades at a stretch, or being left to die of dehydration over the course of a few weeks. Neither is a particularly attractive option, but this is the nature of tragedy. We don’t all get a happy ending.
What’s even more unfortunate is the way she was exploited, her privacy and dignity completely disregarded as her sad, vacant face was plastered all over the papers and television screen, so people on both sides of this issue could make a political point. She could have at least been spared this indignity in her final days.
The word from Thompson HQ is there won’t be a position paper issued next week by Fred about this. He might not issue position papers on other issues at the same time he doesn’t issue a position paper on this.
swj719AWG, re your comment #119,
I totally agree with you. This is historic.
Rusty, I agree with you and swj719AWG. Also, with Huggy Bear’s #129.
I not aware if anyone claimed she was dying by “inches” or otherwise. If that’s the new criteria we’d all have to line up to be offed, I don’t know anyone who’s getting younger & growing away from death by inches and decades. Not even Dick Clark.
I too agree with swj, and Melvin_Udall.
The arguments to the contrary, which I have indeed read, utterly fail to convince me that the federal government should have had any authority in the Schiavo case (or cases like it) whatsoever.
Uh, you’re dying by inches right now… It’s called aging.
In Terri’s case, she’s have laid in that bed for the rest of her life, never waking. In your case you just die a little more as each moment passes, with every breath you take.
Though in Terri’s case, it’s unlikely she’d have lived “a natural life”, due to the host of things that can hasten your death when you are invalid in a hospitol.
The idea that, were I put in Terry Schiavo’s state (no living will, long term coma, no chance of recovery), that the government could override my wishes as communicated to my spouse. . . scares me greatly.
…who has since moved on and started another family, and stands to have a great financial benefit, and has had allegations of spousal abuse thrown at him. Yeah, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to get involved in that.
I hope my spouse WOULD move on. Why would I want her to be alone after I’m gone? That’d be awfully selfish of me, wouldn’t it? I’d also hope to impart her the great financial benefit of removing the burden of my medical care bills.
As for the ‘allegations of spousal abuse’, it’s worth pointing out that they lacked the credibility to ever be more than allegations. Considering the vast attention devoted to this particular case. . .well, you can draw your own conclusions.
Good, but how much can you move on if you are to be the proxy for someone in her state? If you really want that person to move on, then they would need to relinquish their rights as a proxy.
Or, carry out the wishes of the person you’re proxy for, as I believe her husband did.
Why do I find that so easy to believe? Partly because I found her parents so difficult to believe, and partly because it’s what I would’ve wanted from my spouse. In the absence of a living will, it was his duty, and he carried it out. You can question it all you want, but there it is. The only real lesson here is, have a living will.
We’ve moved onto the “coma” meme. Marvelous. Incorrect, but marvelous.
Terri Schiavo was not in a coma for most of the 15 years after her collapse.
swj719AWG said:
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to think the court system is part of the government. This is a strange blind spot of yours and many others who wanted Terri Schiavo to die.
Every infant is on life support then. Anyone unable to grasp a utensil is on life support then.
And thanks to the wonderful court system, a proxy can take away this “life support” without suffering any repercussions.
You might regret that logic should you ever need assistance with eating.
I noticed you still haven’t addressed the warped logic that oral hydration and nutrition should be denied as well as feeding tubes. That’s like taking someone off of a ventilator, and then after they start breathing, strangling them to death.
I will once it creeps over to my area, if I can. I feel that will be futile once Empress Pantsuit takes her throne though. After she’s done with us, living wills and the like will be probably be as useless as they are in the U.K.
The refrain of “don’t do what Terri Schiavo did, get your wishes down in writing and/or get a decent proxy!” is how it applies.
Which worked fine until her husband wanted her dead. He tried to kill her via neglect in 1993, but suffered no consequences even though it was deemed illegal.
Of course, it’s highly unlikely that Terri Schiavo wished for her husband to cheat on her, but she wasn’t allowed to divorce him because of a catch-22 – she needed her guardian to say so, and her guardian was her husband. Convenient, for him anyway.
The law was followed piecemeal, ignored in some places, followed to the letter if not the spirit in others, and completely made up in a few more.
Had the underlying principles of our laws been followed instead of the sophistic three-card monte that prevailed, Terri Schiavo would most likely be alive and cared for like the other lady I mentioned.
Even if that “legally authorized” person demonstrated a desire to kill you? I somehow doubt that. I hope you never find yourself at the tender mercies of someone who doesn’t have your true best interest in mind.
Agreed. But the bottom line is Right Said Fred (There I did it!!!) needs to have an opinion on this one.
If he expressed it in a manner not unlike I did mine (which I not so humbly believe isn’t too far off of Fred’s, though I’m sure he’d say it better), would that satisfy everyone’s braying?
Or would you continue to cruicify him for not thinking the Govt should step in to impose it’s will?
Just more evidence that Col. North should be on the ticket…We know where he stands on all the issues…
Spun another way, he tried to fulfil her wishes on an earlier date, but due to lack of a living will, faced legal barriers. What you’ve shown me, angryfatman, is the spin from one side of the story. I’ve read the arguments from both sides, weighed them, and firmly believe the husband WAS looking out for her interests, and that her parents were interfering with matters that were no longer their responsibility. They became his, when he and Terry were married. Not the parents’, and certainly not the government’s.
Yes, if dying was what I wished under those conditions. That’s exactly what I’d want. Not for the government to make that decision. It’s not their place.
angryoldfatman, you are posting only the information and spin that supports your position, to the exclusion of numerous doctors reports, testimony of the husband, etc. etc. That is your right, of course, but having read both sides, the information you interpret one way rings entirely different to me.
Once more for the record, I applaud Fred Thompson on his refusal to treat this as an issue the government should deal with.
I can’t believe this thread got so many responses. The ‘he killed Terry’ people seem more like the Cindy Sheehan’s of the movement here.
I agree with the posters who say the government should stay out of this issue. How do they know that she would want to be a burden to society? I know I would not want to live if I was in a coma for a decade. I would want my spouse to move on too and live her life.
I believe Terry would have wanted that too. Would you want to keep her alive until she was 150 years old? Were the doctors saying that there was hope for her to be revived the ones who were being paid for her care?
Also, this issue is a perfect example of why Hillary should not be elected and socialized medicine should not be the law of the land. In socialized medicine, the system will decide whether or not you live or die (not some chosen medical proxy).
Aborted babies have an opportunity to live a full and fulfilling life taken from them. Terry at best only had a slim chance at being able to even speak. This was a terrible situation and nobody here knows how they would handle it unless they were in this situation.
We all are going to die eventually. It is always terrible and tragic. Terry had people who loved her enough to try to make her well for 15 years after she could not care for herself. It is a shame that she died, but we were fortunate to have her here while she was here.
Rest In Peace. That means something. If Terry were conscious and could feel, she may have been in pain and a horrifying nightmare for the 15 years she was in the coma. Rest In Peace. This has nothing to do with anything but a family decision with no good choice (and parents who could not accept reality).
I have to disagree with you, Michelle. This is the exact correct stance:
Local matters generally speaking should be left to the locals.
That should be the basis for all domestic policy at the federal level.
Anyway, at the time I thought congress overreached. They were interfering in a marriage between two people.
Sorry Michelle, you’re wrong on this one.
#43 Yashmak said:
It’s funny he didn’t remember her wish to die just a few months before that, when he was claiming to a jury that he wanted to take his wife home and care for her for the rest of her life.
Of course, if he had suddenly remembered her wish in front of the jury, he probably wouldn’t have gotten the seven figure judgement on Terri’s behalf. Once again, very convenient for Mr. Schiavo.
I don’t know why parents would want to keep their daughter from being killed. It… just… doesn’t… make… sense…
Yeah, because Terri Schiavo became her husband’s property, to dispose of as he wished, right?
Good. If your spouse or significant other or whatever finds your existence to be inconvenient, I’ll trust you’ll be steadfast in your viewpoint.
I have heard and read plenty from “both sides”. The only side that presents the most complete set of the evidence and a cohesive narrative is the one I’ve been supporting in this thread. The only rebuttal you can offer is “you are ignorant”.
This rebuttal is the typical psychological projection from those who are in denial of their own deception.
You started out long before you commented here with a premise, that Terri Schiavo had to die, and have simply piled confirmation upon confirmation from the mainstream media onto your viewpoint. The idea that the Schindlers are the “bad guys” here is indicative of this. Your biases and prejudices have blinded you to any coherent possibilities; you can only regurgitate the propaganda fed to you by those who would make Terri Schiavos of us all.
In other words, see comment #56.
What the????
States are responsible for regulating voting, even for federal elections. So, in the case of Gore v. Bush, the federal government inclusing the federal courts should have stayed out of it – right?
People are confusing “pulling the plug” on a person with no brain activity to what occurred in the Shaivo case. She had brain activity. She did not need a respirator to breathe. The administration of food and water were not, until then, considered medical treatment. Do you need a doctor to feed your infant?
Consider also that in the state of Florida, it is a crime to assist in one’s suicide. It does not matter if it merely hastens an inevitable result. It is a crime.
A person on a ventilator with zero brain wave activity is one thing. Someone who needs assistance for life’s basic needs like food and water is quite another.
Do a simple google search and read the results of death by dehydration. It is horrific, and in any other scenario it would be called torture.
“I not aware if anyone claimed she was dying by “inches” or otherwise.”
Uh, swj, you didn’t read past those first few words.
“If that’s the new criteria we’d all have to line up to be offed, I don’t know anyone who’s getting younger & growing away from death by inches and decades.”
You’ve inadvertently expounded on the point on why that would be a particularly bad excuse for snuffing someone.
I think if we’re gonna wax omniscient and toss out guesses it’s just as likely she would have crowned Queen of Great Britian. But since no one of any consequence in this case agrees with either you or me, our guesses are irrelevant.
Of course the one thing we do know for sure that does “hasten death” is being starved to death. Sick people do it to their pets all to often, good thing there are laws against it.
That was incredibly obvious from the videotapes the family made before anyone – especially doctors – who wanted to help Terri recover were forbidden to see her, much less treat her.
I tried asking the same about 50s school segregation in Little Rock, Jim.
The answer: Crickets.
As with your question it was deer-in-the-headlights time. So much for the “states rights” excuses.
Some food for thought for those that might want to know some of the pertinent facts http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
I am pro-life and a Christian Conservative, but I disagree with MM here on this one. I think Fred’s answer is appropriate since he doesn’t remember all the facts.
Frankly, neither did I until I read all the comments here. I didn’t think the Federal government should have gotten involved back then and I still don’t.
Terry was married, so her parents’ wishes were not relevant and they should not have had the final say. Unfortunately, her husband was not a decent man….which means Terry should have made out a living will or some other document that would have stated her final wishes.
So, if she had done this, this topic would be a moot point. It just goes to show you how important it is to document your final wishes BEFORE you are hospitalized or die.
I know that if my husband were to end up as a vegetable and I was told there was no chance for recovery so I decided to stop all treatment…..I would be shocked to have the federal government intervene in such a private and personal matter for my son and I.
Let’s face it, it was all about re-election campaigns and stirring up controversy. And the Democrats came away as winners as a result.
Let’s not let them divide Conservatives again and walk away as winners again just because Fred Thompson didn’t have a stock answer to satisfy Michelle Malkin.
When do you think the Federal Gov’t should be involved, Artbyruth? At least a few questions have come up here – to protect the lives of children as they go to a “whites only” school? In the Florida election in 2000? If so, why in those cases?
I’ve pointed out above how nuts it is that a person should be required to issue a written statement that s/he don’t want to be killed. If a person wants to be killed or doesn’t care and “assisted suicide” were legal, it might make sense to have that person go out of their way to stress their desire to be snuffed. Otherwise it’s bass-ackwards.
Maybe, maybe not – since such things are contestable (and are contested) anyone with an interest in seeing someone dead merely needs to do a little “judge shopping”.( And alot often depends on which side the bed a judge got up on any given morning.)
Or, you could read all of post #117…
Where I responded directly to your statement.
Again, in regards to Bush v Gore (or whatever the order was), the courts were brought in via legal motion (the validity of those motion is a different matter). There was rule of law issues which should be, by definition, decided by the courts. Congress didn’t pass a motion/law/resolution regarding the 2000 election because it wasn’t their place.
Just like the Terri case wasn’t any of their business.
To say that this case mirrors the Arkansas school case is to ignore the fact that in the case of the latter there was actual LAW dealing with the issue. Constitutional rulings from the SCotUS. There is no such ruling regarding medical proxy that I am aware of.
To pull this to a “YOu think them darkies shouldn’t have been alwaed to scholol with them whites” is to basicly call us racists over a matter that doesn’t involve race in any way.
Way to play the MoveOn.org card.
Nicely done.
On September 14th, 2007 at 5:39 am, purplepeep said: ……..
*************
YUP!
And a lot of these guys talk like they don’t know – Fred Thompson was a WATERGATE PROSECUTOR mentored by Howard Baker – he has NO excuse for not having an opinion one way or the other – and wants a job where WE HAVE TO TRUST HIM TO SELECT JUDGES – for a party base that is most determined to NOT SIT ANY MORE DIM LIBERAL OLIGARCHISTS including turkey butts like the jerk onthe Schiavo case!
He wants us to trust him – and almost implies ignorance of the case, WHILE WORKING ON A SITUATION DRAMA THAT TAKES HEADLINE CASES FOR THEIR NEXT STORYLINES FOR MORE THAN HALF THEIR EPISODES!
This is the man who rejected Perjury by Bill Clinton as a basis for Impeachment now calling that a “TRIVIAL MATTER”, and also chaired a committee to investigate the Chinese finances in the Bill Clinton campaign of ‘96 – and concluded WITH NO REMEDY FOR THAT FELONY, that “we don’t want any issues-based ads with candidates faces in them, near Election time!”
He’s also tossed away a comment RECENTLY that he doesn’t approve of a marriage amendment, either, and refuses to meet with people to clarify THAT statement!
As he is a FORMER PROSECUTOR, I am highly interested in his opinions in all these cases – since he wants to nominate our new judges!
Personally, George Bush is my man, and I don’t regret him, even though I don’t always agree with him.
But I am not no way goin’ tah vote LEFT of him!
OK, you are just trying to be sensationalist here. But I’ll answer your question as someone who lived through it as a child.
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT went so far as to declare school bussing to ensure racial diversity in school. In other words, the color of your skin mattered MORE after the federal government stepped in than after. THE SUPREME COURT has recently decided that ’school bussing’ was UNCONSTITUTIONAL – of course that felt better to most of the country that didn’t have to deal with the issue because of their lily white constituencies.
I personally was bussed PAST two schools to get to the one the government decided I belonged to (good job government). Separate but equal was not a bad idea – the MAIN problem was that it wasn’t EQUAL, and that is a problem.
Affirmative Action admission policies to college is also being deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Look at Atlanta communities that WANT TO BE all black – there shouldn’t be a problem with that by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I agree with you though, this is JUST LIKE THAT CASE because the people that it affected the least cared about it the most. It turned public education into a social experiment. Education was no longer the focal point of public education, ’social justice’ was. IT WAS NOT A VERY GOOD LEARNING ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUS THAT THE BEAUROCRATS CREATED.
That circus (while well intentioned) was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL 30 years on. So now because of the government we have to make sure there is an equal percentage of blacks, whites, latinos, asians, arabs in each public school – even though public school financing is the responsibility of the local government (who cares how much gas the extra bussing costs the local government?).
Yeah, you are right, we need more federal government telling us how to live our every day lives to protect us from ourselves.
HOWS THAT FOR YOUR FREAKING CRICKETS CHIRPING? The desegregation policy was and still is more racist than the segregation policy was. And, from talking to most of our young people, doesn’t produce kids that are better prepared for life and more educated. . .it just costs more and is a more difficult system to accomplish.
I will also add that my grandfathers on both sides of my family (white) never went to high school at all anyway. THEY WENT TO WORK! So public education was not the ’social ladder’ that the government wanted it to be anyway. HARD WORK was, is, and always will be the way to fulfill the American dream. . . not some government sanctioned policy to ‘even the playing field’.
That actually isn’t what the law says, and I would hope that you know it.
I’m not a huge fan of McCain Feingold, but at least get moderately aquainted with the actual text of the law.
And for all you folks who are jumping onto the “Down ith Fred” bandwagon, way to run with the Dem’s playbook. This was exactly what they wanted…
Artbyruth said:
That’s the short and sweet talking point fed to libertarians on this issue, and it’s been quite effective in preventing any sort of deeper thought or inquiry on the matter for individuals who are usually so skeptical of the mainstream media and the government in general.
Congress and the President never overstepped any of their Constitutional bounds. The law they produced was bi-partisan and it was aimed at the creaky court procedures that did not allow true due process for someone sentenced to death by a probate court.
The fact that a civil court could successfully order someone put to death should be anathema to anyone professing to love the law. If you think that’s due process, then I hope you never receive due process.
Maybe she could have written, “I want a divorce if my husband shacks up and makes babies with other women while I’m incapacitated.”
Or one could assume that by common sense and/or Florida law.
One could have also assumed that she wished to be fed and hydrated, since she could not possibly have asked her husband to do that until eight years after her collapse.
Or we could assume that by common sense and/or Constitutional law.
You seem to think marriage suddenly makes a woman property of the man she marries, to dispose of at his whim in a civil court. I thought we had progressed beyond this point in society, but I’ve overestimated people before.
It would be nice if we assumed people wanted to fed and hydrated. Life should never be “opt in”; basic care like food and water should never, ever be classified as medical treatment, even if it meant I could write off McDonald’s on my 1040.
Food and water is not treatment. Food and water is basic care.
Strange that you put your husband instead of yourself in the place of Terri Schiavo in your example. You could have put yourself there, but you chose not to. Perhaps it’s because you know deep down that you don’t want to starve and thirst to death, but it’s not so bad if someone else does.
They’ve already won by pushing us down the slippery slope so far that some among us don’t even know there was a slope.
If Republicans have forgotten that life is an unalienable right (Democrats having long abandoned that precept), then they deserve to lose. Fred Thompson doesn’t need a “stock answer”, he needs to show some conviction instead of “I’ll tell you next week whether or not I’ll decide a month from now to announce something or other.”
While Fred’s response to the question about the Schiavo-Schindler case is nothing short of oblivious and ignorant, if not despicable … he has given the best rationale I have heard for CFR — at least the parts that refer to limiting direct donations.
He says it is to avoid bribery. He’s right. Campaign donations are the easiest and most common way to bribe.
How did Midge Rendell (Ed’s wife, Ed also was a huge acceptor of Hsu’s endowments) get her Federal Judgeship? How did she get her promotion to the Federal Appeals bench? I was told it was $250k each time, transfers from Ed’s campaign war chests to the Clinton’s. Bribery.
Midge may be well-loved by many of her peers, but to play with the Clinton’s it takes cash.
In any case the anti-bribery aspect of CFR has some merit. It is the part that disallows speech (as money-in-kind, whatever) is beyond the bounds of common sense in a free democratic republic and breaks those clear safeguards on speech expressed in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
for all who say that Terri’s case was about a “husband” and wife, and that they would like THEIR husbands to speak for them in such a case, remember this; Terri Schaivo’s husband was her husband in name only[due only to his refusal to divorce} at the time of her death. So Limmo, would you be willing to have your husband, who has by then shacked up with a new honey, call the shots on your life or death? Do you not think that your parents would have more of your best interest at heart? Please, use whatever brain you have and THINK.
ALL of these facts, speculations, opinion, rumors, and, in my opinion, a great amount of libel and slander bandied about regarding this issue was, in almost every instance, known to the courts when this issue was being litigated for years and years, as the case was fought, decided, appealed, and upheld. The courts heard both sides, ad infinitum, and made their decisions after very complete litigation. In this case, there was a dispute between family members as to how this matter should be handled. There were multitudes of disputes as to the facts. There were accusations and assertions flying back and forth. The courts heard all that…for years. In the end, they ruled. They applied the law which provided that a husband has superior proxy rights in this type of circumstance to carry out the rights and wishes of a spouse under the facts they found in the case, given no specific instructions and no aggravating factors. (In spite of all the gossip, character assassination and Monday morning quarter backing during and since, the court found none.)
Personally, I favor spousal primacy and feel that it should be the law. As I’ve said before and will this one last time, a primary objection to DeLay and First insinuating themselves where they didn’t belong was that their interference in settled litigation might have disturbed legal spousal primacy. I want it. I wrote it into my living will, the one where I specified that I wish no artificial means to sustain me, including a feeding tube, once my brain ceases to function and there is no reasonable hope of recovery. I also specified that if there is any question or dispute about that, my husband, my children, and my best friend, in that order, will be the ones to choose what will be done on my behalf. If any of them are sleezoids lookin’ to do me in for nefarious purposes, then I chose wrong, but it was my choice.
Use ‘Flabbergastingly’ in a sentence
Flabbergastingly, some, himself included, call Fred Thompson the new Ronald Reagan.
Not so flabbergastingly, that idea just makes me barf!
On September 15th, 2007 at 9:31 pm, limmo said:
******************
No, all the appeals NEVER HEARD THE DETAILS OF THE CASE AGAIN – they only resolved that the lower court decisions were appropriate on TECHNICAL details – NOT ON THE DETAILS of the matters of the case.
NOBODY EVER AGAIN HEARD THE DETAILS of the suspicions that Michael was responsible for her injuries or thwarted basic medical diagnostic testing of her situation.
The most cursory perusal of the details of the case make THAT MUCH perfectly clear.
To contest otherwise is a blatant and disgusting perversion of the facts, from either a legal standpoint, or a journalistic standpoint.
On September 15th, 2007 at 11:56 am, bvw said:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
If Fred is RIGHT, then why did the bill he helped push, support and vote for do so much to enable such as the DIMS why stiffling Conservative and Christian opposition to Dim Socialism?
It’s only one more INSTANCE of his personal Clinton ENABLING. Or did you not KNOW he CHAIRED the meaningless committee that “investigated” the CHINESE FUNDING to the Clinton Campaign of ‘96 – TO NO AVAIL FOR THE CAUSE OF AMERICAN JUSTICE!
Food and water is not treatment. Food and water is basic care.
Strange that you put your husband instead of yourself in the place of Terri Schiavo in your example. You could have put yourself there, but you chose not to. Perhaps it’s because you know deep down that you don’t want to starve and thirst to death, but it’s not so bad if someone else does.
*************
Several years ago, the doctors told my mom that her husband was vegetative and would not recover, and asked to put his living will in effect.
But within hours, my mom and a cousin found they had been double dosing him on Lasix and Phenargan, and his potassium was almost gone!
She got his heart specialists in another city on the phone, and they got things cleared up “toot sweet” – by the next day, he was conscious, alert, and very glad to be alive, indeed!
AND IMMEDIATELY RESCINDED THAT “LIVING WILL”!
They had three more wonderful years together. I was in their home very frequently, and he was delightful companionship. He was the one always the most ready and able to go somewhere, too!
I too noticed this lady felt that her husband starving to death would be a private matter for her and her son.
I suppose she would consider it equally private if she and her son had been the ones to toss her husband down the stairs, as well! Hard to believe these creatures are Americans.
Look, I’m not the one telling people what they think. You can say I’m operating from a position of ignorance, but I know for a fact that you have no way of knowing what I do, or have thought, about this case. The mainstream media I read mostly supported her parents position, so don’t try and use the old “you bought into the MSM” meme on me.
You use sensationalist terms to try and move people, like “property” and “inconvenience”. But it’s really just trying to re-frame something else. . .his responsibility to resepct her wishes. All things weighed, I still think he did. I think her parents understandably didn’t want to let go of their daughter, and would have held the same position even if they’d known it was her wish that she be allowed to pass on.
And it doesn’t matter. It’s STILL not the government’s job to decide, no matter how many hard-hitting adjectives you use to describe the issue.
If I knew my wife’s wishes, and her parents decided they wanted to deny them to her, I’d refuse divorce too, until her wishes had been fulfilled. That’s what I think smalltowngirl.